Alertable - ACBL

[jdonn]

It's very common for players to agree to bid hearts first with both majors in response to stayman. That means a spade response denies 4 hearts and I have never seen that alerted, nor even heard of anyone considering it might be alertable.

 

In a new partnership we play after 2NT and stayman opener bids 3NT with both majors. That means a bid of either major denies 4 in the other. So is 3♥ alertable? How about 3♠? It seems weird to me to only alert 3♥ but it also seems weird to me to alert 3♠ that no one else who plays it the same way alerts. I suppose I could alert neither but that seems wrong especially over 3♥. So as usual everything seems weird to me, please help.

[mjj29]

I would probably alert 3NT and nothing else, but I'm not familiar with the ACBL alert regs. I think spades denying hearts is common bridge knowledge. You might have a case that 3H denying spades is alertable, but that's more arguable, I think.

[bluejak]

Spades denying hearts is based on other agreements, and I consider nowhere near common bridge knowledge. For example, I have read beginner's books that recommend the reverse. I do not believe I play it with half my partners! I believe a player who needs to know whether one major denies the other needs to ask in either the EBU or the ACBL. But a 3NT response showing both is alertable in both jurisdictions.

[jdonn]

Yes clearly 3NT is alertable :) I didn't think I had to point out I knew that part.

[cherdanno]

So responder can psych stayman without any danger?

Better make sure your partner doesn't read this post or you may have to alert 3♣ :)

[hanp]

It seems weird to me to only alert 3♥ but it also seems weird to me to alert 3♠ that no one else who plays it the same way alerts.

 

I don't see why it would be strange. 3H has an unusual meaning so you can alert it. 3S does not have an unusual meaning so you don't alert it.

[jdonn]

So responder can psych stayman without any danger?

Better make sure your partner doesn't read this post or you may have to alert 3♣ :)

No I lied a little. Opener bids 3NT or 4♣ with both majors, min/max. No matter how unimportant a lie seems it always gets me caught!

[blackshoe]

A bid in a major that denies 4 cards in the other major is, by definition, conventional. The default rule for alerting conventional calls is that most of them require an alert. Several exceptions are listed. Neither 3♥ nor 3♠ in the given auction is listed as an exception. So it would seem that technically both bids require an alert. However, not alerting 3♠ seems unlikely to get you in trouble, since most people play that it denies 4♥ and don't alert it either.

[aguahombre]

Would it be appropriate to get out of the "unusual" question and use a different criterion?

 

Like, if a response of hearts to Stayman shows that suit, no alert. But if the heart response additionally denies spades, it carries a meaning about some other suit holding and should be alerted.

 

This way, we don't have to insert our judgement about whether the agreement is common or not. Oops, too slow. Blackshoe covered it.

[gnasher]

You want the opponents to know what your methods are, don't you? And you probably also want to avoid blank looks and long pointless explanations. So alert 3♥, don't alert 3♠, and live with the asymmetry.

[bluejak]

I don't understand how that helps opponents like me who do not think there is a norm for responding with both majors.

[awm]

A bid in a major that denies 4 cards in the other major is, by definition, conventional. The default rule for alerting conventional calls is that most of them require an alert. Several exceptions are listed. Neither 3♥ nor 3♠ in the given auction is listed as an exception. So it would seem that technically both bids require an alert. However, not alerting 3♠ seems unlikely to get you in trouble, since most people play that it denies 4♥ and don't alert it either.

So I take it you would require an alert for all of the following:

 

(1) 2♠ opening weak with 6♠, which denies holding four or more hearts.

(2) 2♦ opening weak with 6♦, which denies holding a four-card major

(3) 1♥ opening with 5+♥ which denies holding four or more spades unless very strong

(4) 1NT opening showing 15-17 balanced which denies holding a 5-card major

(5) Game forcing 2♣ response to 1♠ with 4+♣ but denies holding 4+♠

(6) Raise of 1♣ to 3♣ which shows an invitational hand with 5+♣ and denies a 4M

(7) 1NT response to 1♣ which shows 6-9 balanced and denies holding a 4M or holding 4♦

 

Of these, #1,2,6 are part of standard bidding. #4,5 are commonly played by relative beginners playing standard bidding. #7 is standard if you bid up the line (yes I know many people bypass 1♦ to bid 1NT on 3343 hands). #3 is a consequence of playing flannery.

 

Do you think all of these are alerts, even though no one ever alerts any of them?

 

I have to disagree that a bid which shows length in the suit named and denies length in another suit is necessarily conventional. Where would you get this idea? It suggests playing in the suit named. It's natural. And every bid has this effect to some degree; for example if I open 1♥ showing 5+♥ it obviously denies holding as many as nine spades. And assuming I open longer major (as most people do) it denies holding even seven spades. So 1♥ is a convention? Come on. Maybe you think there is some magical cutoff at four spades (i.e. 1♥ showing hearts and denying five spades is not conventional, but 1♥ showing hearts and denying four spades is conventional; or maybe the cutoff is six and five) but there's no justification for this in any document I can find.

[Mbodell]

I agree with awm. These ought not be alerted in ACBL, but if someone asks then the information should be volunteered.

[barmar]

I basically agree with what awm said. What's special about Josh's system is that they have another bid available to show both majors. So there's a special inference available when they don't make that bid.

 

On the other hand, the ACBL alert regulation says that it's generally not necessary to alert based on negative inferences. E.g. when partner fails to make a support double, we don't have to alert that, and we don't have to alert the responses to New Minor Forcing that deny various lengths in the majors.

[blackshoe]

So I take it you would require an alert for all of the following:

If so, then you didn't read what I wrote.

 

I have to disagree that a bid which shows length in the suit named and denies length in another suit is necessarily conventional. Where would you get this idea?

 

I read the definition of "conventional" in the alert regulation.

 

There's a point at which "denies x cards in another suit" becomes ridiculous. As for "magical cutoffs", now you're being insulting, so I'm done with you.

[peachy]

A bid can be both natural and conventional at the same time. It is not an either/or situation. I think awm post is not intended to be taken seriously. But perhaps I am mistaken.

[awm]

My post is serious, in that I believe blackshoe's claim is nonsense.

 

There are many calls which deny length in some other suit by negative inference. Many of these calls are part of totally standard systems. No one alerts any of them. I don't see any justification for believing that they need to be alerted.

 

The definition for convention is: A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named.

 

However, every bid carries negative meanings about other denominations. For example, when I open 1♥ it carries a negative meaning that "I don't have more spades than hearts" and therefore also "I don't have seven or more spades." If you want to read the above definition literally, every agreement is a convention and that's the end of the story. But I don't think that's what was intended, and I don't think that's how any director or committee interprets the matter.

 

Blackshoe seems to think my example "1♥ denies seven spades" being conventional is ridiculous, but that "3♥ denying four spades" in response to stayman is conventional. Yet he mocks my idea that he is applying some artificial cutoff which is nowhere defined formally. I don't get it.

[peachy]

If you are after limits and cutoffs, other than what the regulation provides (or even as your interpretation of the regulation), then explain it so a simple soul like me can take you seriously.

[jdonn]

Agree with Adam, Peachy don't know what you are talking about, anyway I guess I won't alert but will explain after auction (highly unlikely to matter during auction anyway in fact probably more likely to wake up partner if he forgot). Leaving now, WILL OWN JLALL.

[TimG]

The definition for convention is: A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named.

Does the ACBL define this in the alert charts? Or, convention charts?

 

The Laws no longer define convention, correct?

[peachy]

The definition for convention is: A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named.

Does the ACBL define this in the alert charts? Or, convention charts?

 

The Laws no longer define convention, correct?

Yes. There is a definitions section among the documents that are part of the ACBL Alert Regulations. http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html